G.R. No. L-32853 September 25, 1981
JUAN S. BARRERA (doing business as MACHINERY AND STEEL PRODUCTS ENGINEERING MASPE), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED WORKERS UNION (PAWO) and MASPE WORKERS’ UNION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan S. Barrera, doing business as MASPE, filed a motion with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) to dismiss or hold in abeyance a pending certification election proceeding. The motion was based on an unfair labor practice charge he had filed against one of the contending unions, the MASPE Workers Union. The employer alleged that this union had failed to bargain collectively and had engaged in an illegal strike marked by force and violence. Barrera argued that the status of the union and its members, who were also respondents in the unfair labor practice case, would remain uncertain until that case was resolved, thereby affecting the certification election’s validity.
The CIR denied the motion, finding that the grounds alleged “appear not to be indubitable.” A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CIR en banc. Barrera then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via the present petition, vigorously contending that the resolution of the unfair labor practice case was a prerequisite to a proper certification election, as it would determine the legitimacy of the union and the employment status of its members.

ISSUE

Whether a pending certification election proceeding may be dismissed or held in abeyance at the instance of an employer due to a pending unfair labor practice case filed by the employer against one of the contending unions.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CIR’s order. The Court resolved the issue by applying the doctrine established in the 1973 case of B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. vs. Goodrich Confidential and Salaried Employees Union-NATU. The legal logic is clear: while a certification election may be postponed if a labor organization objects to a company-dominated union’s participation—necessitating a prior unfair labor practice proceeding to clear the union’s status—the reverse situation where the employer seeks postponement calls for a different conclusion.
Allowing an employer to stall a certification election pending its unfair labor practice suit could dilute the strength of a legitimate union and interfere with the employees’ free choice of bargaining representative. The Court emphasized that such a delay could engender fear among employees and act as a tool to hinder the exercise of their right to self-organization. The law aims for the majority’s chosen representative to bargain for all employees in the unit; thus, there should be no unwarranted reduction of voters based on a pending case that might affect only some individuals. The certification election should proceed independently to ensure a free expression of the employees’ will. The employer’s right to file an unfair labor practice case is not precluded, but it should not be used to obstruct the certification process.